Home
Wirenet Communications
Contact us

Ether and
Magnetic field

Galileo and
Einstein
are wrong

Equivalence
Principle

Ether and
Equivalence
Principle

Proof  for
the advance
of Mercury's
perihelion


Open
Letter

 

The
Electro
gravitational
Theory I

The
Electro
gravitational
Theory II

The
Electro
gravitational
Theory III

The
Electro
gravitational
Theory IV

The
Electro
gravitational
Theory V

Generalised
Geometry

Mathematics
of degree

Video 01

Video 02


Ether
and
Light

 


Experiment 21
Experimental
Verification

 


Experiment 22
Experimental
Verification

 


The mistakes
of Einstein

 


Spherical
Shell
Problem
 

Recapitu-
lation


TECHNOLOGY
Fusion:
The “ZEUS”
machine

 


CERN/OPERA
IKARUS
TSOLKAS

 

THE EXPERIMENT OF LIGHT PROPAGATION WITHIN
AN INERTIAL REFERENCE FRAME

ABSTRACT

Einsteins second postulate of the Special theory of Relativity states that “ the laws of Physics are the same in every inertial reference frame (equivalence of inertial reference frames)”.
However, the moving electric charge experiment described on a previous link (See experiment - 21 on www.tsolkas.gr) demonstrates the falsity of this postulate.
Another experiment proving the above is the experiment of light propagation within an inertial reference frame which is fully described below.

Although of great significance to physics, this experiment is low-cost and can de easily carried out by universities, physics researchers, etc.

THE EXPERIMENT

1. Theoretical part
Let there be a platform P (Fig. 1) which is stationary relative to the surface of the Earth.

Fig. 1

Two parallel mirrors Mo and ΄ of length are placed on platform , spaced at a distance d from one another. Mirrors Mo and ΄ are perpendicular to platform P.
A light source L emits a ray of monochromatic light L1. Ray L1 is parallel to mirrors Mo and ΄ and platform P, as well.
Using a mirror 1, we cause light ray L1 to deflect at an angle (e.g. = 100).
Ray L1 reflecting off mirror 1 is successively reflected by parallel mirrors Mo and ΄ at points 1, 2, 3, … n – 1, n at an angle ( < ).
Once ray L1 strikes mirror 2, it bounces off at an angle and hits mirror 3, then reflects off mirror 3 at an angle and falls onto mirror 4; then bouncing off mirror 4 at an angle it strikes mirror 5, and reflecting off the latter at an angle it finally falls onto screen So at a point A.
Note: Apparently, all mirrors Mo, ΄, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, as well as screen So, are perpendicular to platform P and fixedly placed on it.
Let us assume that we move platform P (together with light source L, mirrors Mo, ΄, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, screen So placed thereon) at a constant velocity , relative to the surface of the Earth.
In this case, the following will occur for an observer () found on platform :

  1. If the second postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity holds true (Ether exists in nature), then light ray L1 emitted by light source L should fall at all times onto the exact same point on screen So, either platform P is stationary ( = 0) or moving at a constant velocity > 0 relative to the Earth.
  2. Conversely, assuming that Ether exists in nature, then from the perspective of observer (O) found on moving platform (at a velocity > 0 relative to the Earth), ray L1 will travel along a different path (green coloured) and will eventually strike screen So at a different point ΄ spaced at a distance ΄ = a from point A, where a0.

Now the question being raised is the following:
Which of the above two cases will observer (O), who stands on moving platform ( > 0), see occurring, Case 1 or Case 2?
This critical question can be answered by performing the “experiment of light propagation within an inertial reference frame”, fully described below. 

2. Experimental apparatus
Description:
As per Fig. 1, the apparatus used for conducting the “experiment of light propagation within an inertial reference frame” consists of the following:
Light source L is a 20-mW Laserpointer, emitting monochromatic green light of wavelength
=5,3 . 10-7m .
The outgoing laser beam has a circular cross section of diameter do = 3 mm (Picture 1).

Photo 1

Platform consists of a wooden surface measuring 150 cm x 42 cm x 1,2 cm (Photo 2).

Photo 2

The two parallel mirrors Mo and ΄ measure 120 cm x 15 cm x 3 mm and are spaced 46 cm
apart (d = 46 cm).
Mirror 1 measures 10 cm x 10 cm x 3 mm.
Also, mirrors 2, 3, 4, 5 and screen So measure 12 cm x 14 cm x 3 mm.
Light source L is placed horizontally and parallel to mirrors Mo and ΄ and at a height h = 4 cm above wooden platform P.
Also, the two parallel mirrors Mo and ΄ are connected to one another by five pairs of J-type steel grub screws, 50 cm long.
Each such pair consists of two grub screws of diameter d1 = 5 mm and D1 = 10 mm respectively.
All grub screws are fitted with nuts f at both ends, for adjusting the parallelity of mirrors Mo and ΄.
Note: At this point, it should be stressed that light source L, mirrors Mo, ΄, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and screen So, are fixedly and immovably placed on wooden platform P.
Thus, light beam L1 strikes mirror 1 and is reflected at an angle of 112 approximately ( = 112).
Then, light beam L1 reflects off mirror Mo onto 10 points successively, and off mirror ΄ onto 9 points successively at an angle of 14 approximately ( = 14).
Then, light beam L1 bounces off mirrors 2, 3, 4, 5 falling ultimately onto screen So.
Thus, the overall path Lo followed by light beam L1, starting from light source L and reaching screen So is 9 m approximately (Lo = 9 m).

NOTABLE REMARK

At this point, the following should be underlined:
Given that:
1) Light beam L1 emitted from light source L (Laserpointer) has a circular cross section of
diameter do = 3 mm (i.e. it is not a dimensionless straight line).
2) Mirrors Mo, ΄, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are of a small thickness (3 mm) and their surface is not totally flat, and
3) Light beam L1 (as mentioned above) covers a relatively long distance Lo = 9 m when it travels from light source L to screen So, having the following effect:
When light beam L1 falls onto screen So it does not form a bright dot (point); on the contrary, an irregularly shaped image is formed on screen So (Photo 3).
Image consists internally of bright and dark fringes.
These bright and dark fringes are variously shaped (lines, dots, etc) and sized (Photo 3).

    Photo 3

    Note: If we place a biconvex lens of diameter  D = 6 cm at a very small distance from mirror 5, we will see beautiful and sizeable homocentric, circular bright and dark fringes form on screen So, allowing us to make several important observations when performing this experiment.
    After everything described above, we secure platform P (together with light source L, mirrors Mo, ΄, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and screen So) on a wooden base 1 (made of Novopan) measuring 160 cm x 60 cm x 3 cm, (Photo 2).
    Also, between platform P and base 1 four wooden props a1, a2, a3, a4 measuring 40 cm x 5 cm x 2 cm are transversely and equidistantly inserted; these props are securely fastened to platform P and base 1.
    Note: In order to ensure greater stability and rigidity for the experimental apparatus, base 1 is further supported perimetrically as follows: i) lengthwise by two reinforced aluminum plates G1 and G2, 160 cm long and 9 cm wide, and ii) widthwise by two steel plates G3 and G4 measuring 25 cm x 7 cm x 2 mm.
    Thus, platform and base 1 are securely fastened together constituting an uniform structure of great stability and rigidity. Platform P and base 1 make up the experimental apparatus (Photo 2).

    The support base of the experimental apparatus
    The base that supports the experimental apparatus (as shown in Photo 2) consists of the following parts (Photo 4):

    Photo 4

      1) A highly stable and rigid MDF surface 2 measuring 160 cm x 60 cm x 16 mm.
      2) A bubble wrap sheet 3 placed on top of surface 2, measuring 160 cm x 60 cm x 2 cm.
      3) A foam rubber layer 4, measuring 160 cm x 60 cm x 5 cm, placed on top of bubble wrap sheet 3.
      4) Six steel H-shaped squares fixedly placed around the perimeter of MDF surface B2, measuring 10 cm x 10 cm x 2 mm.

    The purpose of using these six -shaped squares is to prevent the experimental apparatus, as well as surfaces 2, 3 and 4,  from shifting horizontally (Photo 2).
    Subsequently, we place the experimental apparatus as shown in Photo 2 on top of foam rubber layer 4 (Photo 4).
    In this way, the experimental apparatus “floats” freely on foam rubber layer 4, unaffected by vibrations.

      5) Because this experiment (as discussed below) is carried out inside a moving vehicle (automobile), there are two bubble-wrap “pillows” 5 (50 cm x 30 cm x 3 cm) between MDF surface 2 and the automobiles support points.

    Finally, Photo 5 shows the complete experimental apparatus, as used for the purposes of this experiment (experimental device, Photo 2 + support base, Photo 4).

    Photo 5

    PERFORMING THE EXPERIMENT

    The “experiment of light propagation within an inertial reference frame” was performed at night in two phases, as follows:
    PHASE : Let automobile S be an inertial reference frame.
    We place the entire experimental apparatus (Photo 5) inside automobile S which is stationary relative to the Earth ( = 0). The experimental apparatus is positioned horizontally, while parallel mirrors Mo and ΄ are also parallel to the direction of the automobiles motion S. Then a light beam L1 is emitted by light source L (Laserpointer). Light beam L1 goes in a direction opposite to that of the automobiles motion. As mentioned above, light beam L1, after successive reflecting off mirrors 1, Mo, ΄, 2, 3, 4, 5 (10 reflections off mirror and 9 reflections off mirror ΄), eventually falls onto screen So forming an image 1 of the fringes, similar to image of the fringes  shown in Photo 3.
    Thus, when automobile S is stationary relative to the Earth ( = 0), the image 1 of the fringes seen by observer () inside automobile S, remains always constant in time.

    PHASE : We set automobile S in motion, at a constant velocity = 160 Km/h relative to the Earth.
    Then a light beam L1 is emitted from light source L (Laserpointer).
    Light beam L1, after successively reflecting off mirrors Mo, ΄, 2, 3, 4, 5 (10 reflections off mirror and 9 reflections off mirror ΄), eventually falls onto screen So forming image 2 of the fringes similar to image of the fringes shown in Photo 3.
    Thus, during the performance of the experiment, observer () who is inside the moving automobile S (Phase ), will notice that image 2 of the fringes is different from image 1 of the fringes when automobile S is stationary relative to the Earth (Phase ).
    More specifically, the internal part of image 2, looks different from that of image 1.

    For observer () sitting inside automobile S, each time the experiment was performed (more than 20 observations were made), the image 1 of the fringes produced on screen S by light beam L1 in Phase ( = 0) was at all times different from image 2 of the fringes formed by light beam L1 in Phase II ( > 0).
    Based on the observations made during the performance of this experiment, the following conclusion is drawn:

    CONCLUSION

    For observer (O), who is inside automobile S:
    On screen So, the image 1 of the fringes formed by light beam L1, when automobile S is motionless in relation to the Earth, = 0 (Phase I), is always different from image 2 of the fringes formed by light beam L1, when automobile S is in motion in relation to the Earth, and travelling at a constant velocity > 0 (Phase II).

    The above conclusion is of great importance for Physics and totally contrary to the second postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity, because:
    According to the second postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity (for observer (O) who is inside automobile S, the image 1 of the fringes in Phase I (=0) and the image 2 of the fringes in Phase II ( > 0) should be identical, with no differences between them.
    However, the observations made during the performance of the experiment showed that image 1 of the fringes in Phase I ( = 0) and image 2 of the fringes in Phase II (>0) are never the same and are always different to one another.
    Therefore, given what we discussed above and based on the conclusions drawn from performing our experiment in Phase I ( = 0) and Phase II ( > 0), it is experimentally proven that the second postulate of the Special Theory of Relativity is completely false.
    Thus, inertial reference frames are never equal in terms of all natural laws, as Einstein mistakenly claims in the axiomatic foundation of the Social Theory of Relativity.
    Obviously, the implications of the results of the experiment of light propagation within an inertial reference frame are huge for contemporary Physics, because:
    Based on the results of the “experiment of light propagation within an inertial reference frame”, it emerges that Ether (as a medium for the propagation of light) does exist in Nature (see the “New Ether Model”) as described in detail on the site www.tsolkas.gr.

    THE CONSEQUENCES

    As is well known, the Special Theory of Relativity is based upon the following two postulates:
    Postulate : The speed of light c is the same for all observers.
    Postulate : The laws of physics are the same in every inertial reference frame
                         (equivalence of inertial frames of reference).

    The above two postulates are equal in the sense that:
    When postulate I is true, then postulate II is also true and, vice versa, when postulate II is true, then postulate I is also true. However (as previously discussed), based on the results of performing the “experiment of light propagation within an inertial reference frame”, it was experimentally proven that postulate II of the Special Theory of Relativity is not valid in Nature. Therefore, if postulate II is not valid, it follows that postulate I is not valid either.
    Thus, the speed of light c is never the same for all observers, as Einstein mistakenly claims, according to postulate I of the Special Theory of Relativity.
    In consequence, both postulates (Postulate I and Postulate II) of the axiomatic foundation of the Special Theory of Relativity are completely false.
    Note: Obviously, the same conclusion (i.e. that both postulates, Postulate I and Postulate II, are untrue) results from performing the experiment of the moving electric charge (see experiment – 21, at  www.tsolkas.gr).

    FINAL CONCLUSION

    From what we discussed above, it emerges that:
    . Based on the results of performing:

      1. The “experiment of light propagation within an inertial reference frame”, as described above, and
      2. The “experiment of the moving electric charge” (see experiment – 21, at www.tsolkas.gr).

    it is experimentally proven that:
    The axiomatic foundation of the Special Theory of Relativity (Postulate I and Postulate II) is false in its entirety, and, therefore, Ether does exist in Nature (see the “New Ether Model” at www.tsolkas.gr).
    Therefore, the Special Theory of Relativity is a false Theory of Physics.
    . In addition, because the true cause of
    the perihelion shift of planet Mercury (and other planets) is not the curvature of space-time around the Sun (as Einstein mistakenly claims in the General Theory of Relativity) but the Suns revolution around the centre of mass of our Solar System (See Planet Mercurys perihelion shift at www.tsolkas.gr), this means that:
    The General Theory of Relativity is also a false Theory of Physics.
    Consequently, on the basis of what we discussed above ((A) and (B)), it is proven, beyond doubt, that the Theory of Relativity is, in its entirety (Special and General) a completely false Theory of Physics.
    The above (A) and (B) mark, once and for all and irrevocably, the end of the Theory of Relativity (Special and General).
    In essence, the Theory of Relativity is in fact pseudo-physics, and by no means expresses the natural reality.

    COMMENT

    Why are these two important experiments, namely:

      1. Theexperiment of light propagation within an inertial reference frame”, as described above, and
      2. Theexperiment of the moving electric charge” (See experiment – 21, at www.tsolkas.gr).

    (which are very simple to perform and cost very little money) not performed by various universities, etc, in order to prove, beyond any doubt, that that the Theory of Relativity is a completely false Theory of Physics?
    Might there be hidden interests preventing those two important experiments of Physics from being performed?

    NOTE: The above experiment of light propagation within an inertial reference frame was performed on five evenings on the by-pass of the Agrinio motorway, from “Kouvaras” to Kefalovryso Aitolikou and vice versa, in an automobile travelling at a velocity of = 160 Km/h.
    Thanks: Having reached the end of this project, I would like to thank by brother, Fotis Tsolkas, for his help with performing the “experiment of light propagation within an inertial reference frame”.
    Also, for the photographs used in this project, thanks are due to the Technofilm photography studio, owned by my friends Kostas and Anna Synetopoulou in Agrinio.

    Copyright 2010: Christos A. Tsolkas                                          Agrinio, April 6th, 2010

    ©  Copyright 2001 Tsolkas Christos.  Web design by Wirenet Communications